Jump to content

Why such negativity towards a NA


Yuma4
Followers 5

Recommended Posts

I am sure this has been debated for years but I am being lazy and not searching through mounds of threads.

 

Why is there so much angst or negativity towards a NA or NM post. Isn't worst case that a reviewer looks at it and sends a message to the CO. If not warented then the NA or NM is removed. Am I missing something? Doesn't seem to me to have to be a big issue or cause a fight, bad blood etc.

Edited by Yuma4
Link to comment

A lot depends on the mindset of the cache owner.

 

When I've logged NM what I mean is "hey, your cache has suffered a bit and you need to check it out when you have some time". To me it's the same kind of thing as saying to someone "hey, your zipper is undone". The intention is to help. Unfortunately some people regard "your cache is damaged" as meaning "didn't you check this useless cache? Your cache is useless and so are you for not having fixed it already. Get your sorry a** out here RIGHT NOW and sort it". If you're going to assume a bit of friendly advice is intended to humiliate you in public it's natural you'll react badly to it.

 

Some folks think that logging NA makes you some kind of self-appointed "cache police". There are a few people who log NA for no good reason ("I can't find this cache, so it's obviously not there and because nobody has logged anything on it for three months it's about time it was archived"). On the other hand if a cache owner hasn't responded to numerous NM logs it's clear they are unlikely to ever maintain their cache so it should be put out of its misery.

 

I barely cache these days but when I was more active if there were major problems with a cache I'd log NM on it and if there was no response within a month I'd log NA. I figure if a cache owner can't get to it for a while they can always disable it until they can. If they disabled it and I noticed nothing had been done with it for several months I'd write a note asking what was happening and if there was no response within a month log NA, because it would become clear once again that the owner was unlikely to do anything.

 

Some owners don't do anything with their caches until an NA appears, when they rush into action to stop a reviewer from archiving their caches.

Link to comment

I am sure this has been debated for years but I am being lazy and not searching through mounds of threads.

 

Why is there so much angst or negativity towards a NA or NM post. Isn't worst case that a reviewer looks at it and sends a message to the CO. If not warented then the NA or NM is removed. Am I missing something? Doesn't seem to me to have to be a big issue or cause a fight, bad blood etc.

NM logs do not automatically go to a Reviewer. Some Reviewers will do periodic sweeps of caches in their areas that have had a NM set for a long period of time and then they may decide to Disable the cache, depending on the nature of the problem.

 

NA logs do automatically alert the Reviewer. I think a lot of the angst comes from the wording of the NA log. "Needs Archived" sounds very harsh and that's one of the reasons people don't like using it. People have campaigned for a long time to have it changed to something like "Needs Reviewer Attention" or something. Posting that you think a cache needs to be archived smacks of being a cache cop or control freak when that might not be what you really intend but that's what the log type says.

 

I've never had a NA posted on one of my caches but I can imagine I would get worked up even though I know the intention of the log is simply to raise a question or concern to a reviewer. "How dare you say my cache needs to be archived? What gives you the right?" Sad, but true.

Link to comment

I think much of the negativity is when people place NA or NM simply because they can't find it.

Nothing wrong with the hide. Coords are good. Present, helpful CO.

We act on hides that may have an issue when it's mentioned in a log. Maybe others don't.

We just did maintenance on a hide and noticed only one side of the Rite In Rain notepad is being used.

- We'd bet that at the last page, someone's gonna put a NM on it that the log's full...

Link to comment

I am sure this has been debated for years but I am being lazy and not searching through mounds of threads.

 

Why is there so much angst or negativity towards a NA or NM post. Isn't worst case that a reviewer looks at it and sends a message to the CO. If not warented then the NA or NM is removed. Am I missing something? Doesn't seem to me to have to be a big issue or cause a fight, bad blood etc.

NM logs do not automatically go to a Reviewer. Some Reviewers will do periodic sweeps of caches in their areas that have had a NM set for a long period of time and then they may decide to Disable the cache, depending on the nature of the problem.

 

NA logs do automatically alert the Reviewer. I think a lot of the angst comes from the wording of the NA log. "Needs Archived" sounds very harsh and that's one of the reasons people don't like using it. People have campaigned for a long time to have it changed to something like "Needs Reviewer Attention" or something. Posting that you think a cache needs to be archived smacks of being a cache cop or control freak when that might not be what you really intend but that's what the log type says.

 

I've never had a NA posted on one of my caches but I can imagine I would get worked up even though I know the intention of the log is simply to raise a question or concern to a reviewer. "How dare you say my cache needs to be archived? What gives you the right?" Sad, but true.

 

I suspect they word it that way BECAUSE it sounds harsh and thus limits its abuse. I could see a lot more people using the "Needs Reviewer Attention" log willy-nilly, maybe even instead of the "Needs Maintenance" log. People are less likely to post a log asking for archiving than one just asking for someone else to look at it.

Link to comment

I am sure this has been debated for years but I am being lazy and not searching through mounds of threads.

 

Why is there so much angst or negativity towards a NA or NM post. Isn't worst case that a reviewer looks at it and sends a message to the CO. If not warented then the NA or NM is removed. Am I missing something? Doesn't seem to me to have to be a big issue or cause a fight, bad blood etc.

NM logs do not automatically go to a Reviewer. Some Reviewers will do periodic sweeps of caches in their areas that have had a NM set for a long period of time and then they may decide to Disable the cache, depending on the nature of the problem.

 

NA logs do automatically alert the Reviewer. I think a lot of the angst comes from the wording of the NA log. "Needs Archived" sounds very harsh and that's one of the reasons people don't like using it. People have campaigned for a long time to have it changed to something like "Needs Reviewer Attention" or something. Posting that you think a cache needs to be archived smacks of being a cache cop or control freak when that might not be what you really intend but that's what the log type says.

 

I've never had a NA posted on one of my caches but I can imagine I would get worked up even though I know the intention of the log is simply to raise a question or concern to a reviewer. "How dare you say my cache needs to be archived? What gives you the right?" Sad, but true.

 

I suspect they word it that way BECAUSE it sounds harsh and thus limits its abuse. I could see a lot more people using the "Needs Reviewer Attention" log willy-nilly, maybe even instead of the "Needs Maintenance" log. People are less likely to post a log asking for archiving than one just asking for someone else to look at it.

I agree.

"My newest, most accurate in the World, whiz-bang phone reads 20' off. Reviewer please check it."

Link to comment

I suspect they word it that way BECAUSE it sounds harsh and thus limits its abuse. I could see a lot more people using the "Needs Reviewer Attention" log willy-nilly, maybe even instead of the "Needs Maintenance" log. People are less likely to post a log asking for archiving than one just asking for someone else to look at it.

I agree. Of course, we want it both ways. We want it worded in such a way that people won't be afraid to use it when appropriate but harsh enough that people won't use it when a simple NM will do. It's hard to design a system that works for the lowest common denominator.

Link to comment

I am sure this has been debated for years but I am being lazy and not searching through mounds of threads.

 

Why is there so much angst or negativity towards a NA or NM post. Isn't worst case that a reviewer looks at it and sends a message to the CO. If not warented then the NA or NM is removed. Am I missing something? Doesn't seem to me to have to be a big issue or cause a fight, bad blood etc.

NM logs do not automatically go to a Reviewer. Some Reviewers will do periodic sweeps of caches in their areas that have had a NM set for a long period of time and then they may decide to Disable the cache, depending on the nature of the problem.

 

NA logs do automatically alert the Reviewer. I think a lot of the angst comes from the wording of the NA log. "Needs Archived" sounds very harsh and that's one of the reasons people don't like using it. People have campaigned for a long time to have it changed to something like "Needs Reviewer Attention" or something. Posting that you think a cache needs to be archived smacks of being a cache cop or control freak when that might not be what you really intend but that's what the log type says.

 

I've never had a NA posted on one of my caches but I can imagine I would get worked up even though I know the intention of the log is simply to raise a question or concern to a reviewer. "How dare you say my cache needs to be archived? What gives you the right?" Sad, but true.

 

I suspect they word it that way BECAUSE it sounds harsh and thus limits its abuse. I could see a lot more people using the "Needs Reviewer Attention" log willy-nilly, maybe even instead of the "Needs Maintenance" log. People are less likely to post a log asking for archiving than one just asking for someone else to look at it.

 

Great point. I was thinking Needs Reviewer Attention would be a great name change; however, I see how that can quickly become abused.

Link to comment

I agree with the OP that there's no good reason for them to be seen negatively. team tisri put it well: they should always be seen as helpful, NMs pointing out problems so that they can be fixed, NAs pointing out issues that make the cache unviable in its current state.

 

Some COs are just unable to see them in this light, only able to see them as unwarranted criticism.

 

Unfortunately, some NMs and NAs are meant to be hurtful, and others are phrased poorly so they aren't or, at least, don't seem helpful. Not to mention the mistakes by people confusing "I can't find it" with "It isn't there". So I think some COs are gun-shy with some justification because of actual negative experiences.

 

In either case, I think general awareness of their use is the best approach, and this thread is one good way to help that happen.

 

I can't resist, though: one thing that -- in my opinion -- would work against increasing this awareness is toning down the name of "Needs Archived" to make it seem nicer. If a cache has a problem that requires reviewer attention, everyone should always be aware that one possible outcome is that the cache will have to be archived.

Link to comment

I suspect they word it that way BECAUSE it sounds harsh and thus limits its abuse. I could see a lot more people using the "Needs Reviewer Attention" log willy-nilly, maybe even instead of the "Needs Maintenance" log. People are less likely to post a log asking for archiving than one just asking for someone else to look at it.

I agree. Of course, we want it both ways. We want it worded in such a way that people won't be afraid to use it when appropriate but harsh enough that people won't use it when a simple NM will do. It's hard to design a system that works for the lowest common denominator.

 

Perhaps 'MNA - May need archiving'.

 

I preface my NA log with..."Needs attention". Then I finish up with what the problem is with the cache.

 

Link to comment

I agree with the OP that there's no good reason for them to be seen negatively. team tisri put it well: they should always be seen as helpful, NMs pointing out problems so that they can be fixed, NAs pointing out issues that make the cache unviable in its current state.

 

Some COs are just unable to see them in this light, only able to see them as unwarranted criticism.

 

I remember an interaction with another cacher in one of the forums, when they took even an NM as a huge personal (and public) insult. They expressed great annoyance at being publically called out as having failed to maintain their caches and wondered how people could expect them to stay on top of everything around their normal life. They seemed totally unable to accept that an NM log is intended to let them know there's a potential problem so they can see to it rather than a public humiliation because they had failed to stay 100% on top of everything.

Link to comment

They seemed totally unable to accept that an NM log is intended to let them know there's a potential problem so they can see to it

 

I've encountered too many stupid NM logs to be convinced of what you write (like NM for missing parking coordinates, a set bicycles allowed attribute which someone objects to as the cache is not reachable with bicycle shoes etc). More than 50% of the log book full or log book wet NM logs turn out to be inappropriate when the cache owner checks the cache.

 

Personally, I read every log I get for my caches and I have no need for a special log type. I know myself what I need to do if someone reports an issue. I do not need to be told which actions I need to take by cachers who have been caching for a few weeks. I write NM logs only very rarely and when there is really a serious issue. Many NM logs in my area read like military commands .... This must be done, and that must be done .........

It's more the contents and not the log type that can be extremely annoying.

Link to comment

They seemed totally unable to accept that an NM log is intended to let them know there's a potential problem so they can see to it

 

I've encountered too many stupid NM logs to be convinced of what you write (like NM for missing parking coordinates, a set bicycles allowed attribute which someone objects to as the cache is not reachable with bicycle shoes etc). More than 50% of the log book full or log book wet NM logs turn out to be inappropriate when the cache owner checks the cache.

 

Personally, I read every log I get for my caches and I have no need for a special log type. I know myself what I need to do if someone reports an issue. I do not need to be told which actions I need to take by cachers who have been caching for a few weeks. I write NM logs only very rarely and when there is really a serious issue. Many NM logs in my area read like military commands .... This must be done, and that must be done .........

It's more the contents and not the log type that can be extremely annoying.

 

I'm fortunate in my area. Most NMs are quite cordial. It's only when the cache owner ignores logs that things get a little less cordial. Or if the CO puts out a crappy cache that requires maintenance immediately (e.g. very poor coordinates). As a cache owner I value the NM log. It says to me that there really is a problem. Especially these days when people do dozens of caches in a day. If I see a regular log that says the logbook is full yet the next 2 logs say nothing, I might assume that the first of the 3 couldn't remember exactly which cache they found had a full logbook. But when I see an NM saying the logbook is full it's most likely full (or just about full). I have yet to have received a false NM.

Link to comment

I agree with the OP that there's no good reason for them to be seen negatively. team tisri put it well: they should always be seen as helpful, NMs pointing out problems so that they can be fixed, NAs pointing out issues that make the cache unviable in its current state.

 

Some COs are just unable to see them in this light, only able to see them as unwarranted criticism.

 

I remember an interaction with another cacher in one of the forums, when they took even an NM as a huge personal (and public) insult. They expressed great annoyance at being publically called out as having failed to maintain their caches and wondered how people could expect them to stay on top of everything around their normal life. They seemed totally unable to accept that an NM log is intended to let them know there's a potential problem so they can see to it rather than a public humiliation because they had failed to stay 100% on top of everything.

I may have brought this up a few times. I ran across some caches that I couldn't find and there were other DNFs and the CO wasn't responding to them. So I put NM logs instead of adding another DNF to the pile. Well it turned out I wasn't paying attention to who's caches I was doing this to. The few were to the same CO and he took the NM personally. He basically said that I must be focusing my attention on only his caches and if I wanted his caches gone then fine. I sent a message back to him apologizing if he thought I did this on purpose to upset him. He then archived all of his caches and they were really old ones. Other cachers scrambled to try to save them and then basically pointed their fingers at me and that it was all my fault. Only a few cachers came to me and said this CO had done this before, archived his caches.

And just recently I wrote to a reviewer about a buried cache. I thought the reviewer was going ask the CO to rehide it above ground. Instead he archived it and the CO started deleting my logs and compared his cache to Mingo and some other grandfathered caches.

Link to comment

They seemed totally unable to accept that an NM log is intended to let them know there's a potential problem so they can see to it

 

I've encountered too many stupid NM logs to be convinced of what you write (like NM for missing parking coordinates, a set bicycles allowed attribute which someone objects to as the cache is not reachable with bicycle shoes etc). More than 50% of the log book full or log book wet NM logs turn out to be inappropriate when the cache owner checks the cache.

 

Sure, there will always be silly log types. In many ways saying a cache needs maintenance because you can't walk to it wearing cycling shoes and it's marked as "bicycles allowed" is no more silly than a cache saying "Found it" with a log that says "I got to the base of the tree and saw it 50 feet above me but didn't feel like climbing the tree". The cache owner can easily enough reply to the NM saying "bicycles are allowed, that doesn't mean any type of bicycle can get through the trail" and clear the NM flag. If you're allowed to ride a mountain bike along a rocky trail (i.e. "bicycles allowed") that doesn't mean you'd want to attempt to ride an expensive carbon time trial bike along the trail.

 

Personally, I read every log I get for my caches and I have no need for a special log type. I know myself what I need to do if someone reports an issue. I do not need to be told which actions I need to take by cachers who have been caching for a few weeks. I write NM logs only very rarely and when there is really a serious issue. Many NM logs in my area read like military commands .... This must be done, and that must be done .........

It's more the contents and not the log type that can be extremely annoying.

 

I was never one to write an NM log unless there was something that specifically needed attention. If the log was full or sufficiently wet that writing on it was impossible then I'd log NM. It's great that you read every single log but I don't imagine all cache owners do, and as someone already said if other cachers are considering finding your cache they might like to know if there's a potential issue with it rather than being expected to read all the Find logs to see if there's something mentioned in any of them.

Link to comment

I agree with the OP that there's no good reason for them to be seen negatively. team tisri put it well: they should always be seen as helpful, NMs pointing out problems so that they can be fixed, NAs pointing out issues that make the cache unviable in its current state.

 

Some COs are just unable to see them in this light, only able to see them as unwarranted criticism.

 

I remember an interaction with another cacher in one of the forums, when they took even an NM as a huge personal (and public) insult. They expressed great annoyance at being publically called out as having failed to maintain their caches and wondered how people could expect them to stay on top of everything around their normal life. They seemed totally unable to accept that an NM log is intended to let them know there's a potential problem so they can see to it rather than a public humiliation because they had failed to stay 100% on top of everything.

I may have brought this up a few times. I ran across some caches that I couldn't find and there were other DNFs and the CO wasn't responding to them. So I put NM logs instead of adding another DNF to the pile. Well it turned out I wasn't paying attention to who's caches I was doing this to. The few were to the same CO and he took the NM personally. He basically said that I must be focusing my attention on only his caches and if I wanted his caches gone then fine. I sent a message back to him apologizing if he thought I did this on purpose to upset him. He then archived all of his caches and they were really old ones. Other cachers scrambled to try to save them and then basically pointed their fingers at me and that it was all my fault. Only a few cachers came to me and said this CO had done this before, archived his caches.

And just recently I wrote to a reviewer about a buried cache. I thought the reviewer was going ask the CO to rehide it above ground. Instead he archived it and the CO started deleting my logs and compared his cache to Mingo and some other grandfathered caches.

 

If your CO has such a thin skin that they think random strangers on the internet have a grudge against them they'll throw their toys out of the pram sooner or later anyway. People ganging up and screeching like harpies on the internet is just one of those things, it would appear. Never mind "shoot the messenger", the new way seems to be to gang up and screech at the messenger until they leave. Of course one advantage of the internet over real life is the ignore list.

Link to comment

Today there was a multi I attempted and I could not find the first part. The first part was a magnetic micro and there are not too terribly many places it could have been. I searched for at least 20 minutes. I put a DNF log, then a NM log. For a second after confirming my NM log I felt a twinge of regret. Of course this CO understands that magnetic key holders in public parks can vanish; she will do something about it (and fairly quickly) and log that it has been replaced.

I'm pretty sure that's how NM is SUPPOSED to work.

 

I've had really bad experiences with NM, NA, and even DNF's ... even "notes" that something is wrong with the cache can spell trouble in this area so I am always reluctant to log them.

Link to comment

Many NM logs in my area read like military commands .... This must be done, and that must be done .........

It's more the contents and not the log type that can be extremely annoying.

 

It could also be that the NM logger is advising, in a clear matter of fact way what the CO needs to do to restore the cache to its intended condition - so that said cache owner can bring with them whatever supplies they need and thus complete maintenance in a single trip - rather than make one trip to work out what the problem is and then another trip to actually fix the problem.

 

Or, with these clear instructions, another cacher who is feeling generous and planning to be in the area / find that cache might take along supplies and maintain the cache on behalf of the CO - saving the CO any trips at all.

 

When I log NM's I tend to do so in a clear, matter of fact way for these very reasons.

Link to comment

I was never one to write an NM log unless there was something that specifically needed attention. If the log was full or sufficiently wet that writing on it was impossible then I'd log NM.

 

I encountered many NM logs in case of slightly damp log sheets where logging was still easily possible and where the text said something like "The log book must be exchanged urgently."

If a NM log is needed in such minor cases at all, it could read like "The log sheet is damp". Whatever action

the cache owner might then think that is necessary, is up to him/her.

 

It's great that you read every single log but I don't imagine all cache owners do, and as someone already said if other cachers are considering finding your cache they might like to know if there's a potential issue with it rather than being expected to read all the Find logs to see if there's something mentioned in any of them.

 

As to the first point, I rather think that the introduction of special log types like NM helped a lot in arriving at the situation that normal logs are not really paid attention to by many cachers nowadays which I regard as unfortunate.

 

As to the second point, in my experience NM logs do not make any difference with regard to the behaviour of future cachers.

For example, if a cache needs a minor fix, it is not any more likely that something will do about it if there is a NM flag.

 

I agree that NM makes sense if the cache cannot be done properly, but for minor issues I do not think that NM logs are really necessary and if they are written, then I prefer those that just report facts and are not are written in command style. Moreover, I think that the matching found/DNF/note log should be longer than the NM log. If the main message for a complex cache is that the log sheet is damp, it's getting frustrating. This spring I was close to archiving a cache of mine that was at that point almost 11 years old. Later it turned out that what has been reported by a newcomer was overly exaggerated and that it would not have been necessary to change the container at all. If he had at least wrote 2 decent sentences about his experience in his found it log, I would have reacted less angry. Many old timers in my area including myself are quite on the edge with respect to the question whether it is worth the effort to maintain some of the old caches any longer as the community has changed that much. Sometimes a minor issue can be enough to cause the end of an old cache which does not have a real issue. There is nothing wrong with NM logs in general, but it would not harm to formulate them in a considerate manner.

 

 

Cezanne

Link to comment

I was never one to write an NM log unless there was something that specifically needed attention. If the log was full or sufficiently wet that writing on it was impossible then I'd log NM.

 

I encountered many NM logs in case of slightly damp log sheets where logging was still easily possible and where the text said something like "The log book must be exchanged urgently."

If a NM log is needed in such minor cases at all, it could read like "The log sheet is damp". Whatever action the cache owner might then think that is necessary, is up to him/her.

 

In that kind of case the NM log is clearly excessive, but the fact it's misused doesn't make it a bad thing to have.

 

It's great that you read every single log but I don't imagine all cache owners do, and as someone already said if other cachers are considering finding your cache they might like to know if there's a potential issue with it rather than being expected to read all the Find logs to see if there's something mentioned in any of them.

 

As to the first point, I rather think that the introduction of special log types like NM helped a lot in arriving at the situation that normal logs are not really paid attention to by many cachers nowadays which I regard as unfortunate.

 

This reminds me of an issue I had with a former boss. I'd been away on holiday for three weeks (which he had approved, so he knew I was gone for a while) and so it was no great surprise to come back to the 856 emails in my inbox. One of them was from my boss. It contained a lot of detail about a forthcoming piece of work that I'd need to know, but was very much a "for future information" email. But at the bottom of it was something that basically said "oh, by the way, there was a major system failure you need to look at urgently". Among the swamp of emails I overlooked the "by the way" point. We could argue over whether it was my fault for scanning emails because there were so many, or his fault for putting something critical at the end of a long message for future reference, but the simple fact remains that if he had sent me a separate email with the urgent issue in it (and maybe tagged it as urgent) I wouldn't have overlooked it.

 

It's the same with a cache log. When people only ever write "tftc" then "tftc, log wet" stands out. But if people write an extended log detailing the day, the hunt, the general area, how much they liked the hike to the cache, and at the end of a long paragraph write "the container is cracked and leaking" it's easy to overlook. An NM log following the Find log that says "container is cracked, needs attention" highlights it in an instant. And as the cache owner you get a separate notification so you know there's a potential issue and can decide what, if anything, to do about it.

 

As to the second point, in my experience NM logs do not make any difference with regard to the behaviour of future cachers.

For example, if a cache needs a minor fix, it is not any more likely that something will do about it if there is a NM flag.

 

I agree that NM makes sense if the cache cannot be done properly, but for minor issues I do not think that NM logs are really necessary and if they are written, then I prefer those that just report facts and are not are written in command style. Moreover, I think that the matching found/DNF/note log should be longer than the NM log. If the main message for a complex cache is that the log sheet is damp, it's getting frustrating. This spring I was close to archiving a cache of mine that was at that point almost 11 years old. Later it turned out that what has been reported by a newcomer was overly exaggerated and that it would not have been necessary to change the container at all. If he had at least wrote 2 decent sentences about his experience in his found it log, I would have reacted less angry. Many old timers in my area including myself are quite on the edge with respect to the question whether it is worth the effort to maintain some of the old caches any longer as the community has changed that much. Sometimes a minor issue can be enough to cause the end of an old cache which does not have a real issue. There is nothing wrong with NM logs in general, but it would not harm to formulate them in a considerate manner.

 

Inappropriate use of cache types seems to be just another problem of unleashing users with an app who apparently are never presented with geocaching guidelines. Of course if people are caching with smartphones and have never read the guidelines all they will ever have to fall back on is the eternal "monkey see, monkey do" approach where they'll just copy everyone else. And if they don't know that Needs Maintenance doesn't mean the same as "I couldn't find it" how would they know not to log NM just because they didn't find it?

 

The writing style of a log is a tricky one because of the eternal problems of online communication. Something that might be intended to come across as "I'm the tenth person in three months to DNF, when you have a moment could you check it's still there?" could come across as "why the (bleep) haven't you checked on this already, get out and do it now". This is especially so in the smartphone world where presumably people lack the inclination to write an extensive log on a small screen in the field.

Link to comment

I may have brought this up a few times. I ran across some caches that I couldn't find and there were other DNFs and the CO wasn't responding to them. So I put NM logs instead of adding another DNF to the pile. Well it turned out I wasn't paying attention to who's caches I was doing this to. The few were to the same CO and he took the NM personally. He basically said that I must be focusing my attention on only his caches and if I wanted his caches gone then fine. I sent a message back to him apologizing if he thought I did this on purpose to upset him. He then archived all of his caches and they were really old ones. Other cachers scrambled to try to save them and then basically pointed their fingers at me and that it was all my fault. Only a few cachers came to me and said this CO had done this before, archived his caches.

And just recently I wrote to a reviewer about a buried cache. I thought the reviewer was going ask the CO to rehide it above ground. Instead he archived it and the CO started deleting my logs and compared his cache to Mingo and some other grandfathered caches.

I don't know jellis, If your maintenance logs all went to one cacher maybe they are not good cache stewards. I recently started caching in a new area and frequently when I was forced to log a DNF it was a hide by the same cacher. When I log my DNF there is invariably a string of DNFs stretching back over the past year or so. This is a cacher who used to be very active but now rarely caches at all. I'm sure he thinks I am targeting him, his correspondence seems a little short, but what's the better solution, me stop bringing missing caches to his attention or him replacing his missing caches? There is a cache of his that I asked a local cacher (a previous finder) to check on it for me and not only did he confirm it is missing, he logged a note on the cache page stating that it was no longer there. This was a month ago - still nothing.

 

Cache maintenance is part of cache ownership. It says it in Groundspeak's literature.

 

 

 

Link to comment

We recently did a cache series that the CO had put a lot of effort into, but the lids of the containers were cracked and full of holes because of UV light. They had not been visited for many months. We logged "NM" from the field on the iPhone and got an email from the CO expressing appreciation for the information. A lot of work went into the series and it was sad to see the state of deterioration many of them were in. On the other hand, a series in New Mexico had maintenance issues (all of the first 10 had the caps chewed off by critters) and the CO hadn't responded to many previous "NM" logs. We never post a "Needs Archived" but when a cache needs maintenance, the owner needs to know. Too bad if they take it as an insult.

Link to comment

We recently did a cache series that the CO had put a lot of effort into, but the lids of the containers were cracked and full of holes because of UV light. They had not been visited for many months. We logged "NM" from the field on the iPhone and got an email from the CO expressing appreciation for the information. A lot of work went into the series and it was sad to see the state of deterioration many of them were in. On the other hand, a series in New Mexico had maintenance issues (all of the first 10 had the caps chewed off by critters) and the CO hadn't responded to many previous "NM" logs. We never post a "Needs Archived" but when a cache needs maintenance, the owner needs to know. Too bad if they take it as an insult.

 

If the owner doesn't respond to NM logs and leaves the cache active that's just the kind of situation that warrants a "Needs Archived" log. I didn't use NA very many times but if there was a clear problem with the cache and the owner didn't respond to NM within a reasonable time (personally I typically used 4-6 weeks as "reasonable time" to do something, even if only disabling the cache) then I wouldn't feel bad about logging NA.

Link to comment

I was never one to write an NM log unless there was something that specifically needed attention. If the log was full or sufficiently wet that writing on it was impossible then I'd log NM.

 

I encountered many NM logs in case of slightly damp log sheets where logging was still easily possible and where the text said something like "The log book must be exchanged urgently."

If a NM log is needed in such minor cases at all, it could read like "The log sheet is damp". Whatever action the cache owner might then think that is necessary, is up to him/her.

 

In that kind of case the NM log is clearly excessive, but the fact it's misused doesn't make it a bad thing to have.

 

Of course not. That's the same with the "took it" logs for trackables that make sense when used appropriately. The way how they are now used by the majority of cachers in my area who simply use for all trackables in their inventory for every single cache they visit, is still annoying.

 

There are a lot of aspects in geocaching that essentially are not a bad thing to have, but where the annoyance comes from what becomes more and more common usage.

 

The writing style of a log is a tricky one because of the eternal problems of online communication. Something that might be intended to come across as "I'm the tenth person in three months to DNF, when you have a moment could you check it's still there?" could come across as "why the (bleep) haven't you checked on this already, get out and do it now".

 

Ten DNFs in a row are certainly something where I expect a reaction even without a NM log. My comments were with respect to NM logs where the person writing the NM log is the first person mentioning an issue at all.

 

Another reason why I do not appreciate NM logs in case of minor issues that do not effect the cache search is that I neither want to run out immediately to a cache that might involve a long hike because the log book is a bit damp or might be full in 3 months nor do I want to write a "performed maintenance" visit before I actually really took care of the matter. I'd prefer to write first only a note stating what I will

do and when. I do not like however if the NM attribute stays set during this time as then many cachers might believe that the cache has a real issue.

 

 

 

Cezanne

Link to comment

I do not like however if the NM attribute stays set during this time as then many cachers might believe that the cache has a real issue.

 

Indeed - and they might even see that red NM wrench and take along a spare or temporary logbook with them and the means to dry out the cache - and save you a long hike. Wouldn't that be nice? :)

Link to comment

We recently did a cache series that the CO had put a lot of effort into, but the lids of the containers were cracked and full of holes because of UV light. They had not been visited for many months. We logged "NM" from the field on the iPhone and got an email from the CO expressing appreciation for the information. A lot of work went into the series and it was sad to see the state of deterioration many of them were in. On the other hand, a series in New Mexico had maintenance issues (all of the first 10 had the caps chewed off by critters) and the CO hadn't responded to many previous "NM" logs. We never post a "Needs Archived" but when a cache needs maintenance, the owner needs to know. Too bad if they take it as an insult.

 

If the owner doesn't respond to NM logs and leaves the cache active that's just the kind of situation that warrants a "Needs Archived" log. I didn't use NA very many times but if there was a clear problem with the cache and the owner didn't respond to NM within a reasonable time (personally I typically used 4-6 weeks as "reasonable time" to do something, even if only disabling the cache) then I wouldn't feel bad about logging NA.

 

Yes, exactly. It's a service to the community. Otherwise the next finders get to experience a messy abandoned cache - not fun, in my experience, and a waste of time and gas money. Plus if the location is a decent one, that spot never opens up to someone who may be a more responsible cache owner.

Link to comment

My comments were with respect to NM logs where the person writing the NM log is the first person mentioning an issue at all.

 

 

I too tend not to log an NM if it's a somewhat minor issue (damp logbook). Or it's the first report of a somewhat minor problem (leaky container, poured out a couple of tablespoons of water) it just gets a note in my found log. But if there already have been multiple notes in people's found logs that say the logbook/cache is consistently wet/damp then it gets an NM. Another example, if our cache is encased in ice after an ice storm I would want an NM to draw my attention to the problem so I can disable the cache right away. This will prevent a finder cracking our cache to bits by trying to chip it out of the ice.

 

Link to comment

Is a damp log book/sheet a minor problem? Or is it an indication of a bigger problem? If someone logged in the rain and a little got on the log, it's a minor problem. But if the cache is starting to leak, thereby getting the log damp, it's just sign of a bigger problem coming. And even a slightly damp log can become mouldy and won't dry inside a tight cache.

Link to comment

Is a damp log book/sheet a minor problem? Or is it an indication of a bigger problem?

 

Personally I don't think it's a minor issue, especially when it comes to our caches. I take pride in our caches. We use water tight containers and want to know that they're holding up. There have been a few times where I've done my biannual visit to find a messy cache and yet no one said anything.

 

Or the time when no one said anything about a problem and then we get an NM that the logbook is moldy. What?! How can that be? ohmy.gif We use authentic Lock n Locks, no one else has mentioned a problem. When I visit the cache, yep...it's wet, it's moldy. A bubble container had burst, someone else left candy. The lock n lock sealed in the moisture. The contents are gooey wet, the logbook has patches of black mold. Yet for the past month or more finders were tight lipped about the mess. I felt bad for the cachers that ended up finding the cache in that condition and it was a ding to our reputation as providers of decent cache experiences.

 

I suggest, at least mention a damp log in the found it log and if someone else has already mentioned the damp logbook/sheet, post an NM.

 

I have read that some COs filter out regular Found It email (not me, I read them all) and send it right into the trash folder. But they will let DNF, NM and NA logs through.

 

 

Link to comment

Is a damp log book/sheet a minor problem? Or is it an indication of a bigger problem?

 

Personally I don't think it's a minor issue, especially when it comes to our caches. I take pride in our caches. We use water tight containers and want to know that they're holding up. There have been a few times where I've done my biannual visit to find a messy cache and yet no one said anything.

 

Or the time when no one said anything about a problem and then we get an NM that the logbook is moldy. What?! How can that be? ohmy.gif We use authentic Lock n Locks, no one else has mentioned a problem. When I visit the cache, yep...it's wet, it's moldy. A bubble container had burst, someone else left candy. The lock n lock sealed in the moisture. The contents are gooey wet, the logbook has patches of black mold. Yet for the past month or more finders were tight lipped about the mess. I felt bad for the cachers that ended up finding the cache in that condition and it was a ding to our reputation as providers of decent cache experiences.

 

I suggest, at least mention a damp log in the found it log and if someone else has already mentioned the damp logbook/sheet, post an NM.

 

I have read that some COs filter out regular Found It email (not me, I read them all) and send it right into the trash folder. But they will let DNF, NM and NA logs through.

 

Sounds like someone should have logged NM a while back but was afraid in case someone else jumped on them with accusations of being a cache cop.

 

If I had live hides I'd route emails based on log types - Found/Note would go to one folder while DNF/NM/NA would go to another. That way I could read Found logs at leisure but if DNFs started to pile up or someone logged that there was a specific issue I'd see it right away rather than having it lost among other emails.

Link to comment

Any CO that is quick to call anyone a cache cop shouldn't be a CO of themselves.

 

If you are getting behind in maintenance your caches, its your own fault if you get any NM or NA logs. Its not the finders fault when they need to report on your caches. Caches are made to be find, not to be ignored.

 

I got a NA log not so long ago and I archived the cache and placed a new cache in the same area. Did I get upset? No, in fact, I was happy to get the N/A log because I totally forgot about it. I was like...oops, I forgot about it.

 

I see N/M and N/A logs as a tool to remind you that something need to be done. Placing a cache is a commitment.

 

Any CO that get upset over a N/M or N/A logs tell me alot about them. :blink:

 

Here is a quote that I love and its on my profile.

 

"I hope you tend to your marriage better than you tend to this cache."
Link to comment

I am sure this has been debated for years but I am being lazy and not searching through mounds of threads.

 

Why is there so much angst or negativity towards a NA or NM post. Isn't worst case that a reviewer looks at it and sends a message to the CO. If not warranted then the NA or NM is removed. Am I missing something? Doesn't seem to me to have to be a big issue or cause a fight, bad blood etc.

Because generally it's an emotional response to the NM log, that is in fact perceived as an indictment of the COs failure to meet the guidelines. No one likes to fail, no one likes to have their failures pointed out, and no one likes to have their failures pointed out in public. It does not matter how nice you say it (and many are not nice at all) many COs will react emotionally.

 

This perception of failure is also the root to the backlash to the so called "cache cops". Regardless of the technical maintenance issues many cachers do not support identifying perceived failure in public; nor do they support the public shaming "No response in X time, so NA", nor do they appreciate the flippant way the NM/NA is sometimes thrown around, nor do they appreciate cachers that seem to go out of their way to find and log NM/NA, nor do they appreciate cachers that seem to project a sense of pride or glee in their NM/NA adventures.

 

Neighbour A's lawn may be pristine, Neighbour B's lawn may be riddled with thatch and dandelions; they have different perceptions and standards of maintenance. Most can live with Neighbour A discussing the issue with Neighbour B, but neighbourhood surveys, letters to the editor, calls to bylaw enforcement, pictures in the paper, would likely not lead to the desired outcomes ...

 

I’m not saying it’s right or logical, just saying that’s how it is.

Link to comment
This perception of failure is also the root to the backlash to the so called "cache cops". Regardless of the technical maintenance issues many cachers do not support identifying perceived failure in public; nor do they support the public shaming "No response in X time, so NA", nor do they appreciate the flippant way the NM/NA is sometimes thrown around, nor do they appreciate cachers that seem to go out of their way to find and log NM/NA, nor do they appreciate cachers that seem to project a sense of pride or glee in their NM/NA adventures.

 

... except if someone isn't maintaining their caches then sooner or later they need to be disabled, by the owner or by the reviewer. If someone isn't maintaining them because they're lazy, or because their work takes them away a lot, or because they are nursing a dying relative and really don't care about the little boxes they hid, the end result is the same - people waste journeys looking for things that aren't there.

 

If someone is too lazy to maintain their own caches and can't even be bothered to archive them, the reviewer can archive them. If someone is nursing a dying relative they've got bigger fish to fry, so if needs be alerting a reviewer means the problematic caches can at least be disabled if not archived.

Link to comment

Neighbour A's lawn may be pristine, Neighbour B's lawn may be riddled with thatch and dandelions; they have different perceptions and standards of maintenance. Most can live with Neighbour A discussing the issue with Neighbour B, but neighbourhood surveys, letters to the editor, calls to bylaw enforcement, pictures in the paper, would likely not lead to the desired outcomes ...

That's not a bad analogy, but it's incomplete. To better align it with what's happening over here on geocaching.com, let's say that there are municipal bylaws requiring homeowners to keep their yards in a decent condition. If Neighbour B still fails to maintain their yard after being prodded, why not make the issue more public to see if that will garner some action?

Link to comment
I take pride in our caches. We use water tight containers and want to know that they're holding up. There have been a few times where I've done my biannual visit to find a messy cache and yet no one said anything.

 

Or the time when no one said anything about a problem and then we get an NM that the logbook is moldy. What?! How can that be? ohmy.gif We use authentic Lock n Locks, no one else has mentioned a problem. When I visit the cache, yep...it's wet, it's moldy. A bubble container had burst, someone else left candy. The lock n lock sealed in the moisture. The contents are gooey wet, the logbook has patches of black mold. Yet for the past month or more finders were tight lipped about the mess. I felt bad for the cachers that ended up finding the cache in that condition and it was a ding to our reputation as providers of decent cache experiences.

My other 2/3rds is the same way, but we act on logs w/o waiting for NMs.

A matchstick holder at a cool spot lost it's magnets, bag torn and log full (at least it wasn't wet too...), all in a log from the last finder.

That thing had to have been carped out long before, but no one said anything.

- Numbers ya know...

CJ was mortified and like you, felt awful.

I have a different view and tried to explain to her that, "they didn't seem to care too much about you...".

Link to comment

Took a wrong turn, pulled into a pull off. There's a cacher nearby! I had not read the cache page at all. Searched a fair while in the swamp. Only had last five logs.

 

Needs Maintenance 06/30/2014Broken lock but no cache

07/21/2014 TFTC!

07/21/2014 It was almost impossible to write in the log- book, it was soaked. TFTC

07/21/2014 Found it

Didn't find it 06/30/2014 Found broken lock lying in the woods but no cache.

Well, that was the wrong lock. Key operated. The CO gave a combination.

When I got home, I read more logs.

04/26/2014 Found quickly but could not sign logbook because it was waterlogged. The container box was not latched down and any mechanism to seal the lid appears to be broken. The combination lock is broken. We had to use the cords found in the logs in order to find this one. TFTC

11/30/2013 Thanks to the previous posters who left updated coord. We might still be there if we didn't have them. Then the object covering the container was a bit frozen in place and the wheels to set the combination was a little stiff too. But all in all, if we hadn't taken the extra time we would never have been there when the beaver broke through the ice. A real bonus. Thanks for the hide.

10/18/2013 Cache was very off from given coords. After looking at past logs and seeing updated coords the search became much esier. Thanks for the coords (cacher).

06/25/2013 (new coords)Parked at the pullout and made my way along the little path to where it joined the trail. Soon I was at the published cords but had to expand the search. Made the find about 50-60 feet off. I took a reading which may be helpful for the next cachers. Thankfully, the CO had published the lock combination on the cache page so I had no issues opening the box. A nice place to visit. TFTC

Hidden just over a year go. Coords 50-60 feet off. Lock broken. Everything soaking wet.

I did not find it. Posted a DNF. No maintenance by the CO to the logs or NM. Looks like it needs a NA to me!

Link to comment

Any CO that is quick to call anyone a cache cop shouldn't be a CO of themselves.

 

If you are getting behind in maintenance your caches, its your own fault if you get any NM or NA logs. Its not the finders fault when they need to report on your caches. Caches are made to be find, not to be ignored.

 

I got a NA log not so long ago and I archived the cache and placed a new cache in the same area. Did I get upset? No, in fact, I was happy to get the N/A log because I totally forgot about it. I was like...oops, I forgot about it.

 

I see N/M and N/A logs as a tool to remind you that something need to be done. Placing a cache is a commitment.

 

Any CO that get upset over a N/M or N/A logs tell me alot about them. :blink:

 

Here is a quote that I love and its on my profile.

 

"I hope you tend to your marriage better than you tend to this cache."

 

Yup!

Link to comment

Is a damp log book/sheet a minor problem?

 

From my point of view, it is a minor issue with no need to alert other cachers and to keep them away from finding the cache until the cache owner manages to have a look if appropriate.

 

Or is it an indication of a bigger problem?

 

If there is an evident bigger problem, I expect the finders to report the nature of the problem (like leaking soap bubbles in the case mentioned by LoneR).

 

If someone logged in the rain and a little got on the log, it's a minor problem. But if the cache is starting to leak, thereby getting the log damp, it's just sign of a bigger problem coming. And even a slightly damp log can become mouldy and won't dry inside a tight cache.

 

Of course this can happen. Still it is not a matter of days and the cache is still findable in the meantime.

In my opinion, a normal log mentioning the damp log sheet is way enough. The case mentioned by LoneR happened because many cachers do not care to report the status of a cache - this is not an issue of the chosen log type.

I'm aware that some cacher owner appreciate reminders and prefer logs of a special type as they do not read all logs they receive in detail. I do not like being told what is obvious anyway.

 

Cezanne

Link to comment

Is a damp log book/sheet a minor problem?

 

From my point of view, it is a minor issue with no need to alert other cachers and to keep them away from finding the cache until the cache owner manages to have a look if appropriate.

 

Or is it an indication of a bigger problem?

 

If there is an evident bigger problem, I expect the finders to report the nature of the problem (like leaking soap bubbles in the case mentioned by LoneR).

 

If someone logged in the rain and a little got on the log, it's a minor problem. But if the cache is starting to leak, thereby getting the log damp, it's just sign of a bigger problem coming. And even a slightly damp log can become mouldy and won't dry inside a tight cache.

 

Of course this can happen. Still it is not a matter of days and the cache is still findable in the meantime.

In my opinion, a normal log mentioning the damp log sheet is way enough. The case mentioned by LoneR happened because many cachers do not care to report the status of a cache - this is not an issue of the chosen log type.

I'm aware that some cacher owner appreciate reminders and prefer logs of a special type as they do not read all logs they receive in detail. I do not like being told what is obvious anyway.

 

Cezanne

 

Agree with all....+1.

Link to comment

I just had one where the owner disabled after i did a NM.. owner has 12000 finds and many hides and does not plan to replace. I asked to adopt cache... no reply yet. Honestly dont place more caches than you plan to maintain and dont expect others to do it unless you are prepared to adopt. I use NA and NM when necessary and would expect the same in return say if i disappeared or died.... someone can adopt mine in that case...

 

There are a LOT of caches that end up with wet logs so many that i do not NM those I just log found and mention it.Obvious containers that will let moisture in are obvious....

Edited by sholomar
Link to comment

I think too many people take NAs and NMs personally.

 

I've never once been bothered by a NM until this series of logs. They mildly annoyed me.

 

Newbcacher with 46 finds

07/27/2014

45.pngYou need to post accurate coordinates. I went back with a pic from another user and its NO WHERE near. Not about walking blind through the woods

 

Newbcacher with 46 finds

7/20/2014

3.pngTHE WORST CACHE IVE EVER LOOKED FOR!! No where near coordinates, there are four double trees no boulders or crevices near any of them. Is this ajoke or what bc this location sucks something terrible

 

The cache has been there nearly 10 years with those same coordinates and the logs are largely positive about the cache and scenic spot where it is hidden. I planned on checking it today, but finds on it Friday and yesterday indicated that all was well with it.

Edited by briansnat
Link to comment

Is a damp log book/sheet a minor problem?

 

From my point of view, it is a minor issue with no need to alert other cachers and to keep them away from finding the cache until the cache owner manages to have a look if appropriate.

 

Or is it an indication of a bigger problem?

 

If there is an evident bigger problem, I expect the finders to report the nature of the problem (like leaking soap bubbles in the case mentioned by LoneR).

 

If someone logged in the rain and a little got on the log, it's a minor problem. But if the cache is starting to leak, thereby getting the log damp, it's just sign of a bigger problem coming. And even a slightly damp log can become mouldy and won't dry inside a tight cache.

 

Of course this can happen. Still it is not a matter of days and the cache is still findable in the meantime.

In my opinion, a normal log mentioning the damp log sheet is way enough. The case mentioned by LoneR happened because many cachers do not care to report the status of a cache - this is not an issue of the chosen log type.

I'm aware that some cacher owner appreciate reminders and prefer logs of a special type as they do not read all logs they receive in detail. I do not like being told what is obvious anyway.

 

Cezanne

 

I should expound on the situation in my example. There was one Found log that said something about a damp logbook. But it was shortly after I replaced the aging rubbermaid (back then rubbermaids were the best containers on the market but this one was about 4 years old) with a new authentic Lock & Lock. It was out about a month when one finder said something about a damp log. I assumed that the finder may have been mistaken about my cache (since people these days find so many in a day) and perhaps the damp logbook was in one of the other caches they found that day. So I didn't act. The next handful of finders said nothing about the condition of the cache. 2 months go by and that's when I got the NM log, which I acted upon immediately. The contents were a gross mess by then.

Link to comment

I am sure this has been debated for years but I am being lazy and not searching through mounds of threads.

 

Why is there so much angst or negativity towards a NA or NM post. Isn't worst case that a reviewer looks at it and sends a message to the CO. If not warented then the NA or NM is removed. Am I missing something? Doesn't seem to me to have to be a big issue or cause a fight, bad blood etc.

 

obviously, i can only speak for my own experience with the NA flag. i had a cache that was a tough find near a parking lot in an urban area not too far from home. it has had some DNFs on it, and i expected that much. however, after being out more than a year, i got a NA flag raised on it because someone saw that a homeless guy had stashed his stuff about 30 feet from the cache (while he was on the corner 300 feet away panhandling). There was no note, no private email, it was just straight to the NA flag. I have understood that the NA flag is an automatic "reviewer attention grabber". It is a hassle that I don't want to really bother with, because it implies that there is something that i can control... a muggle nearby (homeless or not).

 

for the most part, when i see a NA flag thrown on a local cache it is because the cache hasn't been found (after being agressively sought by locals) and there's no action on the part of the cache owner after months and months of requests for refinement or checking on their 1.5/1.5 cache.

Link to comment

I am sure this has been debated for years but I am being lazy and not searching through mounds of threads.

 

Why is there so much angst or negativity towards a NA or NM post. Isn't worst case that a reviewer looks at it and sends a message to the CO. If not warented then the NA or NM is removed. Am I missing something? Doesn't seem to me to have to be a big issue or cause a fight, bad blood etc.

 

Here in Brazil some geocachers asked me why was logging DNFs!!!! They said it makes less people visit those caches.

 

Imagine what they did when I started posting NMs (141 until now, 60 leading to Disable/Archive) and NAs (22 until now, 11 archived and 9 on the way there, 2 of then the reviewers didn´t accept)...

 

Let´s just say I don´t have any friends here, most of them play a different game that I play!

 

I think it all depends on the geocaching society you are dealing with... Different places adopt different habits!

Link to comment

A few months ago I've logged a few NM-logs for geocaches which haven't been found for several months. In the NM-logs I remarked that the cache should probably be checked just to be sure that it hasn't gone. But the CO unfortunately always reacts to these NM's with the same note: "Huh, you didn't find the cache - so how can you decide the cache needs maintenance? The cache is just hard to find, so I believe the NM-log is being misused. I am going to post an Owner Maintenance now, I will check the cache anytime later"

 

I felt a bit insulted about the suggestion that I was misusing the NM, because I don't write NM's very quickly and I -did- read the previous logs - first many founds after founds, then suddenly DNF's for several months. So I thought it was OK to attract the CO's attention with a NM that the cache should be checked. To the CO's credit, she did check the caches a week later and wrote the next note "Cache checked, still in place. I hope this was the last unneeded NM". I considered the last sentence to be adding to the insult.

 

Is it really that bad that I and other geocachers were just trying to attract her attention to a potential problem? On the one hand she is right that it can just happen that there's a stroke of bad luck for the geocachers, on the other hand if the cache is really hard to find IMHO that warrants a periodic control just to be sure that the cache hasn't gone for real. More so in this case that there were only DNF's for a looong period.

Link to comment

been down this road before. we have two brothers who have placed out over 200 caches between them. one brother has stopped caching totally. the other gets mad if you post a nm or na on one of his. he'll post a reply saying all my caches are alive and well, when several of the local cachers know they are trashed and missing. he finally started removing some of his caches a week or two ago. the local people all have sent him emails and everything with no replies. i'm thinking there are douches in anything we go to do in life.

 

since his brother is no longer caching if we find one of his that is missing now, we just list it as na because we know he isn't going to fix it.

Link to comment

I wonder if some (note: some, not all) of the angst regarding NM/NA logs would be eased if a user had to have a minimal number of finds logged before they were permitted to log NM/NA entries. By "minimal", I'm thinking very minimal ... like, 100.

 

Yes, there will always be jerks who will log NM/NA on anything they can't find, and there will always be jerks who will take personal offense to any NM/NA log on their caches. My proposal wouldn't change that.

 

But it might be reasonable to expect that a cacher logging a NM/NA actually have a small amount of experience with finding caches.

 

(And, yes, I understand why such a suggestion might never be implemented.)

Link to comment

These days you can get hundreds of caches in a single day. Find count is not a good metric for experience.

 

I understand that. But a true newbie is unlikely to get a hundred caches on one day as their first hundred caches.

 

No, there's no perfect metric for measuring experience. But I wasn't trying to find a perfect one. Mostly, I was trying to find a metric that would solve a small part of the "negative NA" problem without causing too much difficulty for everyone else.

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Followers 5
×
×
  • Create New...